Was there any PP done to this? It looks like a film shot. The end of the wing feathes look almost transparent. The far left edges look touched up. Lots of overexposed highlights on this but it is a tough shot in the first place. The moment in whichthis is shot is an awesome one but it did not give me the wow factor of smac's shots.

I am still convinced even with the price that the LTZ10 does a much better job. It showed in Shene's comparisons as well.

No PP work done on the picture, it was shot on the slow side to give a sense of movement, notice the water is elongated and not frozen. The rear wing may have a double image in it from faster movement. It is not possible to directly compare this picture to the ones shown with the LZ10. This is an action shot with the sun coming from behind the subject. The bird is illuminated via water reflection. The LZ10 shots are bird book pictures with still subjects and front illumination. I am not downgrading this type of stuffed bird captures just noting that the style and not the lenses are worlds apart.

BTW, the LZ10 as equipped, could have never made this same shot. It would need a linear polarizer and a custom lens hood, which my rig has.

Pardon my skepticism here but your posts continue to sound like a sales pitch for your custom products which obviously does not include to be used with the LTZ10.

I have seen many a great shot taken without your custom lens hood and with and without teleconverters. The macros with this camera is absolutely incredible in which I see you don't go there. Possibly not your interest or just not an area that you can make your sales pitch.

This IMHO an observation of mine and I may have fallen out of the coconut tree on this one.

Hi playlong,
I have noticed in a couple of your posts including this one that your photos have noticeable noise. Do you like the effect of graininess that higher ISO gives you or is it a matter or shutter speed?